So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Fisherman]

And by chance, he found the only victim whose wounds were hidden a few seconds before he heard Paul approaching.

Yes. And there is no law of nature saying that such a thing cannot happen. But I find there is a limit to how many coincidences I can accept before I call a halt to the proceedings. For me to doubt the value of his candidacy, I would need something more than assertions that family men like him are not killers, and that there are possible innocent explanations to the markers of possible guilt.
As I keep saying, once we are justifiedly worried about matters like the "coincidences" discussed here, we need to take a look and see how he fits the bill geographically. And we all know where that leads us.

I find it hard in the extreme to believe that a person can rack up such a mountain of coincidences, possible lies, unlucky timings and seemingly evasive tactics and not be a prime suspect. Going through years of the standard treatment out here awarded anybody having a suspect not named back in 1888 hasnīt changed that one little bit.

[Harry D]

And by chance, he found the only victim whose wounds were hidden a few seconds before he heard Paul approaching.

Polly's skirts were raised. If Lech the RIpper had really wanted to conceal his gruesome deed, it stands to reason he'd lower them all the way.

[Harry D]

he said that if there had been anybody moving up at Browns, he could not have failed to notice it.

Strange thing for a murderer to say.

[Fisherman]

Polly's skirts were raised. If Lech the RIpper had really wanted to conceal his gruesome deed, it stands to reason he'd lower them all the way.

She was arguably lying on her clothing in such a manner as to disenable that - Paul was not able to pull them down more than just a little bit further, down to the knees. It seemed, he said, as if they would not come down.

That answers this problem of yours.

[Fisherman]

Strange thing for a murderer to say.

Is it? What would you have him say?

[Harry D]

She was arguably lying on her clothing in such a manner as to disenable that - Paul was not able to pull them down more than just a little bit further, down to the knees. It seemed, he said, as if they would not come down.

That answers this problem of yours.

...but Paul was able to bring her skirts down from her waist to her knees. The point stands that if Lechmere was the killer he would've done a better job of concealing his handiwork, particularly as he was going to draw Paul's attention to the victim.

Is it? What would you have him say?

"It was very dark. If someone had been there, I might not have noticed them".

[Sam Flynn]

Is it? What would you have him say?

"It was very dark. If someone had been there, I might not have noticed them".

Good call.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: ...but Paul was able to bring her skirts down from her waist to her knees. The point stands that if Lechmere was the killer he would've done a better job of concealing his handiwork, particularly as he was going to draw Paul's attention to the victim.

Which of the two men do you think was in the worst hurry? I would say Lechmere.
What would have been his main object? I would say to conceal the wounds in the abdomen.
So there is your answer - he did what he could in what little time he had, and Paul, who was in no rush, was able to do a little bit better, but was unable to bring it all the way down.
It is a non-issue.

"It was very dark. If someone had been there, I might not have noticed them".

The choice he made was a clever one. If he claimed that there was someone else up at the body, then any witness along the suggested flight route could have gainsaid him. Of course he could have said that there may have been somebody up there, but since it was very quiet, he may have opted for not suggesting this as the coroner may have asked him how he could not have noticed the man.
The one solution that covers all problems is to say that he saw and heard nobody, and that he would have, had there been somebody. That way, he could not get into any sort of trouble - the murderer was gone, had vanished into thin air, and that could have happened at any time.
He of course forgot about the blood implications, but you can see even today that there are posters who allow for the body to have lain in place since the days of Methusalem.
Another non-issue, therefore.

[Harry D]

Which of the two men do you think was in the worst hurry? I would say Lechmere.
What would have been his main object? I would say to conceal the wounds in the abdomen.
So there is your answer - he did what he could in what little time he had, and Paul, who was in no rush, was able to do a little bit better, but was unable to bring it all the way down.
It is a non-issue.

Lechmere seemingly had time to partially pull down Nichols' skirts, back away into the middle of the road, and prepare to bluff it out, rather than simply walk away. Much likelier, the REAL killer was disturbed/spooked by someone (Lechmere), dropped the skirts before he was finished and slipped off into the night.

Therefore, the matter of the "concealed wounds" is as much a non-issue for me as it is for you.

The choice he made was a clever one. If he claimed that there was someone else up at the body, then any witness along the suggested flight route could have gainsaid him. Of course he could have said that there may have been somebody up there, but since it was very quiet, he may have opted for not suggesting this as the coroner may have asked him how he could not have noticed the man.

The one solution that covers all problems is to say that he saw and heard nobody, and that he would have, had there been somebody. That way, he could not get into any sort of trouble - the murderer was gone, had vanished into thin air, and that could have happened at any time.
He of course forgot about the blood implications, but you can see even today that there are posters who allow for the body to have lain in place since the days of Methusalem.
Another non-issue, therefore.

It comes back to what I spoke of before, your fallacious reasoning that contorts Lechmere's innocent behaviour into guilty behaviour, because a killer is bound to act innocent.

An innocent man isn't thinking about what would incriminate himself. Conversely, no killer in his right mind is going to do or say anything to attract suspicion. Lechmere ruled out the possibility of seeing anyone, and he volunteered this information unprompted. The same goes for mistaking Nichols for a tarpaulin. These statements have a ring of authenticity about them. Of course, unless these were more machinations from the fiendish mind of Lech the Ripper!

Also, please learn to use the quote function. It's not that difficult.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Lechmere seemingly had time to partially pull down Nichols' skirts, back away into the middle of the road, and prepare to bluff it out, rather than simply walk away. Much likelier, the REAL killer was disturbed/spooked by someone (Lechmere), dropped the skirts before he was finished and slipped off into the night.

Therefore, the matter of the "concealed wounds" is as much a non-issue for me as it is for you.

Good. Then we wonīt hear from you on that score again. It was never as if you were going to say "The skirts were all the way down, he must be the killer!", was it?
It is in no way likelier that there was another killer. People that are figments of our imagination only are never likely at all until proven to have existed. Accordingly , the only one slipping here is you.

It comes back to what I spoke of before, your fallacious reasoning that contorts Lechmere's innocent behaviour into guilty behaviour, because a killer is bound to act innocent.

The concept as such is a complex one, I know. But there are a few examples of criminals who have tried to look innocent, believe it or not. Apalling, isnīt it? I would like to stress that - as usual - you are claiming that I accuse Lechmere of being the Ripper on account of how he seemed to be innocent. Of course, what I use to accuse him are the not so very innocent matters, like disagreeing with the police, changing his name, being at the site at a time consistent with the murder etc, and not with the innocent matters. That is something that you claim on my behalf, and it is of course ridiculous.
If he was the killer, then the matters that look innocent will not necessarily be so, but thatīs another matter entirely.

An innocent man isn't thinking about what would incriminate himself.

Canīt remember having said so.

Conversely, no killer in his right mind is going to do or say anything to attract suspicion.

No killer "in his right mind"? Is that what killers are? In their right minds? Of course, criminals who want to stay uncaught will avoid attracting suspecion if they can. Some canīt, some wonīt.

Lechmere ruled out the possibility of seeing anyone, and he volunteered this information unprompted.

Hoorah! Must be innocent, then! No killer in his right mind would volunteer information, we all know that they sulk and clam up.

The same goes for mistaking Nichols for a tarpaulin.

Yes, anyone saying such a thing simply MUST be honest! I mean, no killer would want to dupe the coroner and jury by saying such a thing. It would be unfair.

These statements have a ring of authenticity about them.

And those who think so have a ring of naivety about them if you ask me.

Of course, unless these were more machinations from the fiendish mind of Lech the Ripper!

Yes, unless they were precisely that. But surely, surely not...? It would be devious in the extreme to think something like that up and lie to the inquest.
Maybe, Harry, he realized what you realize: people speaking of tarpaulins are good people. And so he came up with the scheme of conning the jury with this infallible ruse? How about that?

Also, please learn to use the quote function. It's not that difficult.

Is reading black versus red difficult? Itīs like this, what I quote, I leave in black. What I add of my own, I use red for. So black is basically YOUR words and red are MINE. Once you get the hang of it, itīs really easy.

[Batman]

It is not that some criminals caught red-handed don't come up with non-incriminating excuses. Nor is it that some spouse murderers don't themselves call emergency services and claim an accident. We are well aware of these. What we are not aware of is a serial killer who waits with a body of their victim in an outdoor urban setting for a witness to come by to have a chat with them about the body before going off to the police about it.

That's what we are asking examples for.

[Fisherman]

It is not that some criminals caught red-handed don't come up with non-incriminating excuses. Nor is it that some spouse murderers don't themselves call emergency services and claim an accident. We are well aware of these. What we are not aware of is a serial killer who waits with a body of their victim in an outdoor urban setting for a witness to come by to have a chat with them about the body before going off to the police about it.

That's what we are asking examples for.

But you have one, Batman!

Think of it like this: many say that a killer would never, ever do such a thing, to stay and bluff it out.

However, as members of the boards bear witness to after having seen it themselves, there are criminals who do just this thing.

What you now ask for is examples of serial killers who have done so. Do you think that the possibility will go away if no such serial killer can be presented?

What you fail to take on board is that the deciding factor lies in the circumstances. I fully agree that under normal circumstances a killer will flee the scene if he has the chance. I am even willing to say that I think that this will apply in at least 90 per cent of the cases.

But in the Lechmere case, I think we have a case derived from the remaining percentage. Bear in mind what Andy Griffiths said: There was never a chance that Lechmere would run.

He wasnīt speaking about the general picture. He would in all probability say what I say - at least 90 per cent will run.

But in cases like the Lechmere one, it seems he is of the meaning that ten out of ten will stay! He would NEVER have run, according to Griffiths.

There, you had my answer again. And you will also have the same addition you had before:

You cannot prove that no killer would do what I suggest that Lechmere did. The possibility is there, and Griffiths is instrumental in underlining that.

Accordingly, what we have is you saying that you personally think he would have run. And then we have the seasoned murder squad leader and academic criminologist Andy Griffiths, who on the surface of things is a hundred times more suited to make the call than you, who says he would never have run.

And that is as far as we are going to get. No example I dig up about criminals who stayed put and bluffed it out can make it a certainty that Lechmere did the same. No failure to find any other serial killer who did it can prove that Lechmere would not have done it either.

It is a complete and utter waste of time to debate it any further. The sooner you realize that, the better.

[Batman]

Of course, he doesn't have to run. Paul is 40 yards away approx. Cross would have turned the corner and be gone from view.

https://wiki.casebook.org/images/thumb/e/ed/Bucks38.jpg/400px-Bucks38.jpg

This demonstrates that.

JtR had to be caught in the act or with direct incriminating evidence against him.

The reason why you don't have examples of what I was asking for is because no one is being caught red-handed here. Paul is 40 yards away approx.

That's nearly half the length of a soccer pitch, close to the centre lines circle diameter. Do you know how long a row of people stretches there on the sidelines?

Buck's ROW. It's a long road and Cross was close to a corner.

[Fisherman]

Of course, he doesn't have to run. Paul is 40 yards away approx. Cross would have turned the corner and be gone from view.

https://wiki.casebook.org/images/thumb/e/ed/Bucks38.jpg/400px-Bucks38.jpg

This demonstrates that.

JtR had to be caught in the act or with direct incriminating evidence against him.

The reason why you don't have examples of what I was asking for is because no one is being caught red-handed here. Paul is 40 yards away approx.

That's nearly half the length of a soccer pitch, close to the centre lines circle diameter. Do you know how long a row of people stretches there on the sidelines?

Buck's ROW. It's a long road and Cross was close to a corner.

Yes, and you donīt know when he noticed Paul. And the reasons I have no example are a few:
I havenīt looked for one.
The circumstances are what decides, and no two murders have the same circumstances.
Even if I found an example, you would go: Okay, but it is extremely rare. And so it would be an exercise in futility.

I stand by what I have said - Andy Griffiths is a lot better judge in my eyes than you. You are probably more competent and clever in your own eyes, but I am not all that impressed by it.

Are we done now? Or do you need me to correct you some more? Once again, it is a complete and utter waste of time to debate it any further. Once again, the sooner you realize that, the better.

[MrBarnett]

Of course, he doesn't have to run. Paul is 40 yards away approx. Cross would have turned the corner and be gone from view.

https://wiki.casebook.org/images/thumb/e/ed/Bucks38.jpg/400px-Bucks38.jpg

This demonstrates that.

JtR had to be caught in the act or with direct incriminating evidence against him.

The reason why you don't have examples of what I was asking for is because no one is being caught red-handed here. Paul is 40 yards away approx.

That's nearly half the length of a soccer pitch, close to the centre lines circle diameter. Do you know how long a row of people stretches there on the sidelines?

Buck's ROW. It's a long road and Cross was close to a corner.

I'm curious, why did you capitalise ROW?